Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday July 05, 2012 @02:40PM
from the ways-of-knowing dept.

Google is retiring the iGoogle page, but on a much shorter time scale, Apple is shutting down an iService of its own: the cloud-storage site iWork.com (linked to Apple's office apps suite iWork) is slated to go offline at the end of this month. Says the article, over at SlashCloud: "As of that date, 'you will no longer be able to access your documents on the iWork.com site or view them on the Web,' reads Apple’s note on the matter, followed by a recommendation that anyone with documents on iWork download them to the desktop." Both of these announcements remind me why I covet local storage for documents and the ability to set my own GUI prefs.

Makes sense as they are a consumer brand and not targeting the workplace.

I guess the -1 means apple fanboys thought you were trying to slander the company. Funny thing is, Apple will be the first to tell you this. Just as they told me that very thing when we were trying to bring in servers to support ipads and macbooks that some folks in the company had purchased.

Why did this get marked down? Has nobody been watching since Cook took the big chair? Turning FCP into iMovie pro, dragging ass when it comes to updating the pro line (and when they did it was still behind the curve BAD), killing the server line, its pretty damned obvious that while Jobs liked the idea that "The movies are made on Apple products" that Cook? He really don't give a shit.

Mark my words within 2 years the pro line will be quietly canned, probably with some press release stating the iPad is the new Pro tool or some such BS, and the line will be trimmed down to maybe 2 Macbooks and a couple of iMacs and that's it. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Cook exits X86 altogether, its just not nearly as high margin as mobile and its controlled by Intel and NOT Apple which has never set well with Apple.

Frankly when Intel slit Nvidia's throat on the chipset business i figured it was the beginning of the end for Apple X86, Apple and Nvidia had a nice relationship and Intel just killing it like that couldn't have made any friends at Cupertino. Then you look into Cook's past, how he likes to lock parts up with multiyear contracts so they know what is coming when and how much and having their X86 line dictated by Intel must not sit nice with them. They should have went with AMD where they would have had more pull but seeing what Apple has been doing in the pro line I have a feeling Cook will just wash his hands of X86 completely instead.

Apple has been doing in the pro line I have a feeling Cook will just wash his hands of X86 completely instead.

First, you really aren't seeing much of Cook's influence yet. Apple is a big-ass battleship which takes some time to maneuver, and the "turns" you are seeing now were plotted out and called down from the bridge by Admiral Jobs, not Captain Cook.

Also, I can't remember where I heard it (Tim Cook, actually, IIRC); but "Apple" has stated that the Mac Pro is going to get some serious love in 2013.

Apple has had a friendly relationship with a lot of its hardware partners. Apple has historically been pragmatic about those friendships, and very quick to move on when necessary. That's why my Mac is Intel and ATI instead of AIM. Personally, I would have loved another generation of Power PC. I would have liked to see Apple pair up with AMD as well, but admittedly, I can't think of a technical reason why they ought to have. Cook is a supply chain management guy foremost; I doubt he'd kill x86-64. What would

Probably because:
It has an antagonistic title.
It's made by an AC.
It makes a vague statement without support.

Just as a broken clock is correct twice a day, a troll can troll with statements that can be supported. However, the clock is still broke, and the troll is still just trying to antagonize rather than actually add to a conversation. If Mr. AC had bothered to put a non-sensational title, or even left the title but written a well supported explaination of why he believes as he did, it probably would h

I don't use iOS, but have they gotten it to the point where you REALLY don't need a desktop to get it set up? I know for the longest time it was pretty dependent on iTunes on a desktop (Apple or MS). If your only computers were made by Apple, would you be self-sufficient? Would your AppleTV/iPhone/iPad work, and would your AirPort be configurable, and all that?

Maybe the answer is yes, but if not it seems a bit premature to kill off OSX.

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.

It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.

It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.

I think their overall strategy is to move away from the filesystem model since the iPad doesn't expose it to you at all for simplicity, etc. Retiring a service like this makes sense if you keep that in mind.

OK, perhaps I'm just ignorant because I don't use any i-stuff, but what the heck are they going to replace it with? Since your post is marked Score: 4, Insightful it's probably correct, but I'm a bit mystified. It makes even less sense to me than MS doing way with the Start button.

The model they are moving to is one where iCloud contains all your stuff, so local storage needs are negligible. Everything is accessible from everywhere.

Yeah, but "filesystem model" doesn't imply local storage, it can be a networked area available on all devices. "Move away from the filesystem model" sounds more like document data handled by the apps rather available in any other way.

You go into an app, and see the list of documents that go with that app.

Or you receive a type of document in email (or by a dropbox app) and select an application that can open a document of that type.

The file system is horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people. If you really want to bring computing to the masses, the file system must go. I'm not sure if what Apple is doing is the best approach but the computer industry HAS to try something else.

I seriously doubt user confusion with file systems is the reason. Most people who've grown up with computers basically understand files.

Are you sure the real reason for depracating general purpose file systems is you need to do it to sandbox apps from one another. There is a legitimate security concern in letting apps look at or modify files that don't belong to them.

I seriously doubt user confusion with file systems is the reason. Most people who've grown up with computers basically understand files.

Well files, yes. I mean, they understand that Word Document 1 is separate from Document 2, and has a different name, and different contents. That's kind of like understanding files.

But a large percentage of computer users don't understand the filesystem. (And I don't mean that in the volume-format-structure sense.) Most people don't understand how to navigate to Document 1 in Windows Explorer or the Finder (or whatever) unless it's right there on the desktop. (They do understand how to find it in the Open F

On Windows those tend to be the only two places most users need to find. Most users can create folders in those places, understand the concept of folders, and of folders within folders. At that point they understand file systems even if they don't understand the arcane specifics of all the other places different OS's keep files.

No doubt Apple did this because it is simpler for users, but its a simple fact they had to do it that waybecause the OS and every app is sandboxed, and you don't really want general purpose file browsers or access to the whole file system when everything is sandboxed. It dramatically enhances security and maintainability if no user or app can get to the operating system's files, and apps can't get to each others files unless they go through carefully controlled protocols.

There is nothing stopping apps from having file systems of their own and subjecting users to them, Dropbox certainly does.

Most users do not create folders in those places, understand the concept of folders, or of folders within folders. At that point, they MIGHT begin to understand filesystems, but many of them do not ever reach that point.

I can't count the number of times I've sat down to support someone's desktop to find a giant bukkake festival of files literally covering the entire visible desktop, or the "My Documents" folder to be a giant mess of hundreds of raw files with no organization or sense to them.

That's pure BS, people understand file structures and use of explorer just fine. In fact I find more people surprised that they can use the open file dialog rather than just double click on the file they want to use in Explorer, than the way you explain it.

I know the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but both my parents and my in-laws have a file system of "about a zillion files on the desktop." Other people in my family can't find files they have downloaded because they have no idea that they should navigate to a User => Downloads folder. I would be willing to wager that a significant (>50%?) of consumer PC users have a similar lack of comfort or familiarity with what the rest of us consider to be a filesystem arrangement.

So let's just look at the project that I'm working on right now. It's part of a larger project, so my part is a sub-folder. I have spreadsheets, docs, text files, screen shots, a Visio template, some config files, and a folder with a set of firmware versions for the various pieces of hardware I'm working with. All the pieces that I need are in one spot where I can find them and update if need be. If the PM wants to combine some of my info with my co-irker who's working on another part of the project he

The interfaces for navigating the file system are horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people.

There, FTFY.

There's nothing confusing about a hierarchical list of folders. People have no problem intuitively understanding that concept. Where they run into problems is clunky "Explorer" or "Finder" browser windows that show them too many options and too much information.

The classic Mac HFS file system was clunky, but it was dead easy to understand. You could put any file or folder pretty much anywh

I've done support for family. I used to do computer support at a college. People DO NOT understand folders, nested or otherwise, and there is no amount of lipstick you can put on that pig to make it so.

Well, I can't speak to your experience, but I also have done support for family, college faculty, students, and corporate users and found the exact opposite. When explained and demonstrated clearly, people had no problem understanding the concept.

Of course, the concept of folders is different from actually using them in practice. A lot of people found them a pain to navigate, but once they were shown tricks such as pop-up paths, shortcuts, sidebar aliases, favorites, etc. they were able to navigate much mor

The file system is horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people

Moving away from the file system is horribly confusing to me. When folks build up a collection of hundreds of documents and want to keep them well-organized, they drag them into folders. What's so confusing about that, especially when done using a pretty GUI? It's a great metaphor for how non-technical people keep real-world paper documents organized. If anyone has implemented a superior organizational concept, I haven't noticed.

It's pretty simple really: You open an app, you get a list of your documents that have been created in or imported in to that app. If you get an attachment you want to open, it offers apps that are registered for that file type. There's no browsing of disks or folders. It's up to the individual apps to let you group and sort documents by metadata (which will be tailored to the type of data the app deals in, of course). It works pretty well, even if there are some frustrating limitations.

No, I won't like it at all. In my work I need to look at a whole variety of different types of data, sometimes multiple revisions of the same data, for multiple projects and/or customers. I can't see any way that a non-structured storage system is going to allow me to do that. Sometimes I need to open the same data set with multiple apps, and I don't want my computer deciding for me that since this is a.CSV file that it's going to only open in Excel and never in PFE. I'm still not seeing any advantages

I know you won't like it, and I agree with everything you say and more -- in fact, I'm a programmer, and when I see a problem (especially involving a CSV file) I'll quite often go so far as to write a one-off bespoke program to solve it. But we're at the very edge of the edge cases.

But we're different. Most people want their data to remain in the app they used to create it, because that makes most sense. That means they can find it again. Want to re-print that letter you wrote last year to your electricity

Probably they are moving towards a database structure like you have on minis and mainframes. The always on and save state features of Lion are steps in that direction. The sandboxing so that applications have to be granted specific access: i.e. App X has the right to do Y to Z, is a step in that direction. A system wide OS notification system is a step in that direction. Those types of systems are incredibly powerful. They are the reason why in mainframes you can see 75 COBOL programs acting in sequen

Probably they are moving towards a database structure like you have on minis and mainframes.

Some minis, yes. But *the* mainframe OS - MVS, OS/390, now z/OS does not have a database type file system.It has two types of filesystems - a UNIX style hfs (current flavour is ZFS) and the traditionalnode.qual1.qual2...files.The closest thing it's got to a database structure (in a default setup) is VSAM KSDS clusters, consisting of a data and index file component (plus optional alternate indexes) but these are not g

I've never worked with the hfs on a mainframe though I've heard that the Linux for mainframe subsystem works wonderfully and has allowed them to bridge the gap and bring over a whole new generation of programs. In terms of database I wasn't thinking in terms of transactions since COBOL isn't transactional in the ACID/relational sense. Rather think more like a network database and batch programming. So for example the automatic retention of generations and the uses there, is now starting to happen on a

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents...

But iWork was already "only allowing documents".

What we're giving up here isn't general-purpose-ness, but sharing-and-conversion features. Today, you can publish an iWork document via this site, send around the URL, and have people download it in iWork, Office, or PDF formats. I don't see a replacement for that yet.

(But I didn't see a replacement for MobileMe Galleries either, and there are at least two half-assed

You are correct. iCloud for OSX version of iWorks apps is not ready yet.

OK, that very optimistic post. iCloud is fully integrated with iOS iWorks apps, not with OS X yet. There are few things coming July/August time frame -- iOS6, OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion, and updated iCloud (in Beta now). Only obvious guess would be that iWorks apps for OSX will be updates with Mountain Lion that is why shutdown of iWorks.com happens end of the month.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. None of it has anything to do with the sharing feature. I'm trying to see how what you wrote wasn't a non-sequiter.

Let me spell out what I can see. You can tell me if I'm missing anything.

Both iCloud and iWork involve both app-based and web-based functionality. The only place you can see all of the app-based functionality is via the iOS apps, so let's just completely ignore the MacOS apps for now. They have nothing to do with what I'm talking

Just as it's not a good idea to have a single copy of your files on a single disk it's not a good idea to have a single copy of your data in "the cloud" either. Cloud storage is useful, especially when using multiple computers but it's not a substitute for local storage and backups (but does make a good off-site backup). But you have to be prepared to switch storage providers and go through all the hassle of uploading your data again if you rely on someone else to store it. If it comes to that at least having a local copy of your files means you don't have to download them first before you can upload them again.

I for one am not surprised about this. Personally, if you are fucking stupid enough to use the 'Cloud', you deserve what you get. Someone will either steal it, or it will be deleted without authorization. Yeah, like I am going to let someone else manage my private data and documents.

Am I unusual in that most of my documents do not require particularly high security? Or do other people like to imagine that everybody wants to steal their stuff because it makes them feel important? And as far as deleting it, who cares? Anything of value is multiply backed up. The Cloud is just one more backup.

The new service from AppleGoogleMicrosoft. Put your files there. Store them. Depend on them. PAY for their storage. And we'll just say bye to the whole thing when some MBA-asshole (but I repeat myself) wants to make his bonus by "saving" money this quarter.

I got in an argument with essentially my whole class by saying that we never going to fully get rid of system in the home and probably at work. Everyone was "Keep the data in the cloud, we can stream anything all the time, all I need is my smartphone." They brushed off my security arguments, the fact that communications can go down, and you're really going to compose spreadsheets and reports on your smartphone? It was an MBA class, by the way.

"Cloud" services have short lifespans. About two to four years from startup to shutdown seems typical. Google and Microsoft have both dumped many of their online services already. Telco "cloud" services, like Sprint's PictureMail, have been dumped. Many online music services from PlaysForSure to WalMart Music collapsed. Cloud APIs don't last too long, either; Yahoo Search, Yahoo Boss, Google SOAP search, and Hoover's business search are all gone or on the way out.

The shutdowns are getting faster, too. Now, 30 days from announcement to "all your data is gone" is apparently acceptable. Don't put something in the "cloud" and go on a long trip.

The shutdowns are getting faster, too. Now, 30 days from announcement to "all your data is gone" is apparently acceptable. Don't put something in the "cloud" and go on a long trip.

A long sabattical, more likely. MobileMe's shutdown was announced over a year ago (when iCloud was announced). iWork was always a beta thing with "final pricing to come later". And I think iWork.com has been around a heck of a long time - at least a couple of years (a Google-like beta). But since it was beta, you shouldn't rely on

If new computers are not going to use floppy drives then you will have to transfer them to a different storage medium if you want to access the content after the fact.

Dropping an iService is equivalent to moving your content to another form of storage, whether its physical or virtual.

What would be "nice" is for Apple to provide some kind of utility or tool to make conversion easier. iWork.com should now have a button on it to zip up and download one large file of all your content rather then having to manually move individual files to your desktop. Of, zip it up and move it to Apple's new cloud storage, or convert to new Numbers/Pages/Keynote files stored in the cloud, etc. There are about a dozen ways Apple could make this easier for people rather then just cutting the power a month from now.

Its good for old services that are not used to die and allow companies to focus on providing better services people actually use. The opposite is Windows which supports every freaking hardware and software standard on the planet even if only.1% of the people use any of it. I am sure there is still code buried deep in the Windows kernel to support 8" floppy drives.

In the long run, everybody hates change, but they always seem to love the results.

Company drops support for old product rarely used anymore. A few people are upset. News at 11!
In Google's case it seemed more that they are just still trying out different user interfaces more than dropping a product.

I have taken to cloud storage in a big way and mostly quite like the convenience of it. But increasingly I am now forced to react whenever someone sneezes in Mountain View and decides to shut down something. I was affected by Google Pages to which I had links from all over the internet. I had some software downloads on that and the new Google sites is terrible. It is not so much having to move your files. The problem is that other things depend on your process and those all are affected. In the case of my free software, I could not be bothered to move the web-pages over to my server so I just deleted the whole lot.

So, I you needed normal map correction software, Lightning fast image sharing through IM you are now missing out on my free software.

I used Buzz a little, got shutdown too. Not too much of an issue but I was considering to put effort in creating a decent following on it. Glad I didn't. Also gral I never jumped on the Google Wave bandwagon either.

However, I have used iGoogle from the moment is became available and right until today that is my control center. The default home page on all my computers.In one view I can see my appointments, emails, slashdot, bookmarks and recent google documents. Where else can I have that?

So, now the shut that down, I am forced to change the way I do things. And this is really the tip of the iceberg. On Google+ I have a personal and business page. Growing a following takes effort and time but what if they shut that down? In a smaller sense the cloud is also starting to prove downsides.

They are forever "improving" the user interface experience. This means that from one month to the next I am never quite sure how to access my Adsense control panel or other account details. Stuff changes constantly, layouts and styles change and it affects my productivity.

There are real benefits to local software. Although unused, my old Office XP will still run on my windows 7 machine without me having to re-learn how to use the software all the time and forever hunting through menus to find back a feature that I am sure is there somewhere.

I used to blame Microsoft for never sticking to anything (Enter Silverlight) but in all honesty, their OS is remarkable. It will still run very old windows code and I think they do deserve to be recognized for that. In contrast, my new Galaxy S3 android phone will no longer run a $6 racing game I purchased for my Google Nexus One two years ago.

In short: The big providers are their own worst cloud enemy because they keep changing the platform and rules of engagement. And don't give me the "But it is free what do you expect" argument. It is not free at all. I pay for it with information about me and exposure to adverts.

Apple did NOT "kill off iWork". (The title's only 100% wrong; hey, that's not so bad, right?)

iWork is a software suite that's cruising along just fine. iWork.com – hey, a different name! – is closing down. What the post forgets (?) to add is that its functions are not going away; they're simply moving to Apple's new shared home for cloudy things, iCloud.com.

In a separate news item, Apple's MobileMe service is also closing down – but again, that's because much of it is moving to iCloud.com.

Both of these announcements remind me why I covet local storage for documents and the ability to set my own GUI prefs.

great, enjoy your 1993 desktop computer experience. basically, since there are a few examples of cloud services not lasting until the end of the universe, you won't use them. you did read where YOU wrote that the files can be downloaded to your desktop, right?

i'd get it if they went offline without warning, but that's not what's happening.

The service doesn't even need to shut down. All it has to do is mutate in a non backwards-compatible way, and bang! you're screwed. It's not like you can uninstall the new cloud and roll back to the old cloud.

Apple's cloud services have been particularly poorly planned and late on deployment, at least from the desktop side of things.

I'm not a big RMS fan, but he's been warning people about proprietary services like this for years and we've all been bitten by them. I just had to move the contents of my mobile me iDisk to Amazon Cloud Drive. That took some time to download everything and upload it again. (7GB of data) I'll have to deal with it again when Amazon kills their service someday.

We need an open source, p2p like network for our data so there's redundant copies everywhere.